Arizona law takes effect thursday

[Jrecee]

Jrecee, stop posting stuff that makes me stress over having to watch these forums to ensure nobody's picking a fight.

Also, what exactly does the law do? Ask folks for proof of US citizenship when they're stopped for some other reason? I haven't really been paying attention to it.

My understanding is that it allows police to stop anyone who they think could be an illegal. The argument being that it basically makes racial profiling legal for police.

[ToKeN]

can't we just lock this? i mean someone is just gonna start a fight, lets talk about games and systems ya'll. i think this is not the place for a topic like this, just let them do whatever they want.

The forum has been split into a general gaming and a whatever forum. Games and systems conversation is in the general gaming section.

yeah whatever.......just hate to see this here

[Jrecee]

can't we just lock this? i mean someone is just gonna start a fight, lets talk about games and systems ya'll. i think this is not the place for a topic like this, just let them do whatever they want.

The forum has been split into a general gaming and a whatever forum. Games and systems conversation is in the general gaming section.

yeah whatever.......just hate to see this here

To be fair I haven't seen that many serious arguments on here. Mostly they have involved inazuma but nobody takes him seriously anymore. I don't know of that many forums where people discuss things rationally, other than maybe forums made specifically for these kinds of discussions, but those are filled with people who argue politics night and day, or they tend to be completely one sided.

[GSZX1337]

Also, what exactly does the law do? Ask folks for proof of US citizenship when they're stopped for some other reason? I haven't really been paying attention to it.

From what I understand, the law allows (or requires, I can't remember) the police to ask for a person's proof of citizenship, green card, or whatever bullshit you need to stay in the states legally if they pull a person over. The criticism is that the law can be too easily abused (like JReece has said), that Mexicans are going to be the only people targeted, and that keeping papers with you at all times is ridiculous. (Many have compared this to Nazi Germany.)

As for locking this thread and not having threads that cover controversy: while I understand that not not encouraging (and possibly banning) these threads makes your life easier, I think we should have these threads. Having gamers talk about these issues in the same forum as the latest (or earliest) video games is a real credit to Racket Boy and separates it from the rest of the pack. I also think that if we are to have a mature gaming forum, we should be allowed opportunities to display controversial thoughts and ideals without resorting to flaming. (Kind of like how when kids are treated like brats, they act like brats.)

[dedalusdedalus]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about this, but I do have strong feelings about people voicing opinions about something without taking time to acquaint themselves with the facts first.

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/ant ... aw-part-1/

This is the full text of the law in question. Skim through it before forming an opinion.

If you look at section B, the touchstone of the law is any "lawful stop, detention, or arrest." Therefore, AZ state police can ask about immigration status ONLY when there's a lawful stop, detention, or arrest--they can't just pull people off the streets and inquire about immigration status.

Now read the second to last sentence of section B. The text of the law was edited by removing the word "solely" from the phrase "A law enforcement official or agency...may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in building "reasonable suspicion." So the law itself actually prohibits racial profiling, insofar as it explicitly states that race, color, national origin can't be considered.

OK, now if AZ police does get you in a lawful stop, detention or arrest, and they ask about your immigration status after building reasonable suspicion with no consideration to your race, color or national origin, what kinds of papers will get you in the clear? Look at the itemized list in Section B. You can show a valid driver's license or any government issued identification...one of which you should keep on your person at all times anyhow. So the idea that people will now have to carry reams and reams of paper identification isn't in the law itself.

Now, what are the constitutional issues with this law? Holder is going to challenge this law based on Federal Preemption--the doctrine that federal law trumps state law if the two are inconsistent with each other. Notice that the legal challenge being brought by the Attorney General has nothing to do with issues regarding the personal liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, it's being challenged as a federalism issue.

So in conclusion, if the law really did do everything that the media said it would, I'd be strongly against this law. But the language of the law seems to address all of the major concerns that the media is leveling against it (racial profiling, unwarranted stops, onerous burden of documentation).

[Jrecee]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about this, but I do have strong feelings about people voicing opinions about something without taking time to acquaint themselves with the facts first.

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/ant ... aw-part-1/

This is the full text of the law in question. Skim through it before forming an opinion.

If you look at section B, the touchstone of the law is any "lawful stop, detention, or arrest." Therefore, AZ state police can ask about immigration status ONLY when there's a lawful stop, detention, or arrest--they can't just pull people off the streets and inquire about immigration status.

Now read the second to last sentence of section B. The text of the law was edited by removing the word "solely" from the phrase "A law enforcement official or agency...may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in building "reasonable suspicion." So the law itself actually prohibits racial profiling, insofar as it explicitly states that race, color, national origin can't be considered.

OK, now if AZ police does get you in a lawful stop, detention or arrest, and they ask about your immigration status, what kinds of papers will get you in the clear? Look at the itemized list in Section B. You can show a valid driver's license or any government issued identification...one of which you should keep on your person at all times anyhow. So the idea that people will now have to carry reams and reams of paper identification isn't in the law itself.

Now, what are the constitutional issues with this law? Holder is going to challenge this law based on Federal Preemption--the doctrine that federal law trumps state law if the two are inconsistent with each other. Notice that the legal challenge being brought by the Attorney General has nothing to do with issues regarding the personal liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, it's being challenged as a federalism issue.

Good information. Although that keytlaw site looks really really biased. I mean one of the blog entries calls san francisco a dictatorship and refers to the healthcare plan as "obamacare". Hard to take it seriously after seeing that.

[dedalusdedalus]

Good information. Although that keytlaw site looks really really biased. I mean one of the blog entries calls san francisco a dictatorship and refers to the healthcare plan as "obamacare". Hard to take it seriously after seeing that.

Lest anyone think that I'm some kind of right-wing dingbat who hoards gold and canned food in his basement, I only linked to that keytlaw site because it was the first hit on Google that had a copy of the AZ law in something other than PDF.

You can also get the text from a less "biased" site in PDF form:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... rewer.html

[MrPopo]

Let's add some numbers to the equation. Let's say that of the illegal immigrant population of Arizona 80% of them are of hispanic descent and 10% are of caucasian descent. Let's further posit that the mix of hispanics vs. caucasians in Arizona is 50/50. Now we obviously can't check the identification of everyone in the state; it isn't practical.

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

Please note I've not yet presented a personal viewpoint on the subject of illegal immigrants. I merely am working from a starting point that we have immigration laws and the populace seems to want to enforce said laws and am analyzing how best to enforce those laws for maximum efficacy.

Also, if you're going to drag out a quote like that, I feel obligated to mention that the whole point of government is that you trade some amount of liberty for some amount of security, with the two in a general inverse balance. The more liberty you are willing to give up the more security you will generally get. It's up to the populace as a whole to determine how much liberty they want vs. how much security.

[dedalusdedalus]

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

Also, if you're going to drag out a quote like that, I feel obligated to mention that the whole point of government is that you trade some amount of liberty for some amount of security, with the two in a general inverse balance.

Agreed with MrPopo. I'll go further to say that responding to a well-thought hypothetical with a canned quote you pulled from somewhere on the internet is facile, inane, and adds absolutely nothing substantive to the conversation.

You'll find that rights and liberties aren't absolute under the law. Your right to free speech under the 1st Amendment? It's curtailed as soon as your speech poses a "clear and present danger." Your right to not be deprived of property without due process? Look up eminent domain.

[GSZX1337]

Please note I've not yet presented a personal viewpoint on the subject of illegal immigrants. I merely am working from a starting point that we have immigration laws and the populace seems to want to enforce said laws and am analyzing how best to enforce those laws for maximum efficacy.

Also, if you're going to drag out a quote like that, I feel obligated to mention that the whole point of government is that you trade some amount of liberty for some amount of security, with the two in a general inverse balance.

To be honest, quoting Ben Franklin seemed like a better move than "Fuck Police efficiency. The words 'police' and efficiency' can't be used in the same sentence without massive irony." and I thought it said what I thought better than I could say it. I'd rather be in danger than have to present my papers or be subject to excessive unneeded searches just because of my color, race, or whatever.

Your right to not be deprived of property without due process? Look up eminent domain.

With Eminent Domain you are compensated.

Your right to free speech under the 1st Amendment? It's curtailed as soon as your speech poses a "clear and present danger."

I can't defend that one.